Deputy

Been a way from the game for a long time. Hope the patches they came out with improve game performance. Dep

So you object to us being honest? How else would you describe a slideshow effect during campaign gameplay? We've given the developers detailed descriptions of the problems we encountered. And the simple fact is the campaign IS unplayable for a great number of us. And people suggesting we just play individual missions is NOT a solution. The game needs a major fix. The developers are fully aware of it. They've made suggestions for makeshift fixes and they don't work. Most of us have taken this game off our hard drives until it actually IS fixed. And after paying a large chunk of money for what appears to be a game that HASN'T gone through any beta testing, I am not very interested in being kind and cordial to the developers. Right now most of us feel RIPPED OFF.

For a better idea of what a lot of people are experiencing with this sim, I suggest you read this thread: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=91315 Not everyone is experiencing problems. But it's more than just a few people. OS and hardware and background programs have all been addressed. We have people running fantastically HOT computer systems and just about every operating system you can think of including 32 bit and 64 bit and ALL unneccessary programs shut down. We have dual video cards with huge amounts of onboard RAM and enough system RAM to run the most complex games wirth ease. None of it seems to matter.

Everything you didn't know about memory leakage. And it may be meaningless to you, but those who have experienced it with other programs are well aware of it... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_leak Yes, most of us tried the demo before buying the sim. If this same memory leakage problem occured in the demo, do you REALLY think we would have bought the sim?? Give us credit for a LITTLE common sense. I hope you have better luck with the full game than many of us did. Eye candy is rather worthless when you have a slideshow instead of a smooth-running motion. Try the campaign and see how it works for you. That is where we are experiencing the memory leak problem. At least, that's the THEORY for what is wrong. At this point, since the programmers are suffering a severe case of lockjaw-and-denial, we really don't know exactly what is wrong.

Well said Phil. I tried multiple times, fiddling with all kinds of settings, and the dang game is just unplayable. Games should NOT be released with the idea that the customers will end up being the beta testers. There are just way too many reports of the memory leak for this to be just a few guys with weak computers. We have already seen in other threads that some folks have killer game computers and they still can't run this sim. Telling people to "just use the mission generator" is unacceptable. My reply to that is "how about a refund for everyone for the part of the game that ISN'T working"? And the patch situation is ridiculous. It's obvious that the game maker is more interested in releasing newer games than in fixing the problems with what is already released. You can see that by the advertising going on on this forum. Well newsflash for the manufacturer, but we WON'T be buying any more new games till you fix what is released. I see people going all ga-ga over the graphics. Well they are nice, but to have nice graphics at the cost of proper operation isn't acceptable. I've been accused of being the "squeaky wheel" when it comes to this game. That may be true, but only because I want this game TO WORK! And it's pretty obvious that the squeaky wheel isn't getting anything accomplished. So like Phil, it's OFF my hard drive and won't be going back on until some REAL fixes come out. Note that I am an avid fan of the Combat Mission series. I have all three of them and they work like a charm. And the graphics seem pretty decent to me. Not as fancy as TOW:Kursk, but I also get excellent frame rates and no memory leaks. I'll take that anytime. Dep

I reported it last night. This goof spammed the whole forum.

Von: It's cool, and thanks. I think we all want TOW Kursk to be a success and just have diffrerent situations with the sim. Hopefully Battlefront will listen to our suggestions and follow through on them. Did you get any combat time in with the 4th?

Heh...that's what Saddam thought until he ran up against rhe M1A1.

I have read similar accounts of the early Panthers having all kinds of mechanical problems. The later versions seem to have solved a lot of them. Interesting that even after the war ended the Panther was still considered the best tank to come out of WW2 and wasn't really considered obsolete until many years after the war ended. When I got back from Nam in 1969 I was assigned to the 3rd Armored Cav at Ft. Lewis, Washington. I first went to a 4.2 inch mortar track and then as a gunner for an M60A1 tank. I couldn't believe how tall that thing was and prayed we would never have to go to Europe to fight. They make VERY nice targets compared to the M1A1 Abrams.

First, visit this link and enlighten yourself: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=91315 Second, people have computers that are super-hot with all the latest, fastest hardware on them (see the above link again) and THEY are having problems with the sim. Third, since TOW Kursk is so bug ridden with not only FPS problems, but also lockups and CTDs, I have been playing all three of the Combat Mission sims and enjoying them immensely. So I don't need lectures from you or anyone else about Battlefront. Fourth, the new patch does NOT fix the problems and Sneaksie seems to think the solution is to reduce the graphics to 640X480 levels. Fifth, it appears the squeaky wheel does NOT get the grease, no matter that a LOT of people are having problems with this sim. Sneaksie has already said the new patch coming help does NOT address the issue. I paid good money for a COMPLETED sim. My comp meets or exceeds the high end specs. So do most others that are also having problems. Telling people to STFU is NOT going to make anyone happy. What WOULD make us happy would be an acknowledgement from the developers or someone in-the-know that there is definitely a problem, the cause of the problem, and that they are working on it. That has NOT been forthcoming. Sixth, the FPS problem did not appear in the demo. If it did, a lot fewer people would have bought it. I never liked donuts. I prefer burritos.

That's what is so frustrating. There are MANY of us that have high end or high power systems that have no problem running other games that are much more demanding. I wonder just how much system resources TOW Kursk really uses? I mean they recommend dual core processors, but I just figured that they did that because that was mainly what is available nowadays. Cripes....is this sim actually USING both cores to operate? The MINIMUM requirements are CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo or AMD Athlon64 X2 (2,4GHzor better). So that is TWO 2.4 GIG processors. 4.8 GIG all together. Recommended requirements are CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 or AMD Phenom II X550 That is TWO INTEL 3 GIG processors or 6 GIG If this sim is using BOTH processors and it STILL can't run without dropping into a slideshow, then something is VERY wrong. Optimum RAM is listed as 4 GIG. Most folks have that and even more. Graphics: nVidia GF 8800 or AMD Radeon HD 4850 with 512MB RAM or better Most folks have WAY more that 512 meg of onboard graphics RAM. Just doesn't make sense. What also has me wondering is the recommendation of Windows 7 or VISTA 64 bit operatig systems. There aren't a whole lot of sims/games that are written for 64 bit OS. Although the 64 bit system DOES allow you to break through the 4 GIG RAM limitation of 32 bit systems. But Does TOW Kursk actually run better in 64 bit? I have WinXP 64 bit and I get a slideshow in the first mission of the campaign. And I pretty much meet or exceed the optimum specs.

Well said Narses. My biggest problem is deciding which of the 3 games to play

You might have to EAT that horse, pal. Latest word from Sneaksie is FPS was NOT addressed. Read it and weep. Seems like the developers want everyone to either reduce the graphics to 640x480 with NO eye candy or buy a new ultra high end machine. Only problem is we've already done the lower graphics thing and many people already have ultra high end machines and the problem still exists. Doesn't make me feel very confident when the company takes a "sorry about that sh**" attitude and blames us for a poorly developed sim with obvious problems. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=91662

I asked Sneaksie in another thread about the new patch and if it will address framerates. Here is his reply, plus replies by me and Knaust1: Sneaksie: Low framerates reported in first few missions are caused by big amount of units acting simultaneously, some systems fare better than others in such stressful conditions. To improve the framerates, unit count in these missions might be reduced, but this will be obviously undesirable for those who don't have problems. New patch contains further AI delays and algorithms tuning (along with other fixes and new content), which may improve framerates as well, but your mileage may vary. If you have low framerates in big battles, try turning performance-hungry graphics features first (for example, dithered shadows). If this doesn't help, but your fps go sky-high when you pause the game, it means that the cpu is the bottleneck. I would play such engagement using 0.5 time speed (selected at the top of the screen) until unit count drop. Reply by Knaust1: well said...but then you have to change system requirements in the game specs And me to Sneaksie: I think you will find that most people ARE having problems with framerates. There is a whole thread on it. We have already tried using programs that shut down all unnecessary running programs and lowering the game requirements to bare minimum settings. That hasn't helped. And we didn't pay all this money to see graphics from the 1980s. We are also experiencing crash to desktop and lockups. That would indicate there is a good deal wrong with this sim besides just framerates. Why would the developers not address these problems in this upcoming patch? Do they not read the posts and bug reports posted on here? Does nobody let them know what is going on with this sim? Most people have solved their framerate problem by NOT PLAYING the campaign AT ALL. That is hardly a viable option. We paid for a full game with all features functioning in it. Knaust1 is correct. If this game is taxing the system MORE than what the system requirements show, and we certainly have a bunch of guys with systems that EXCEED the optimum system requirements, then you are gonna have to change the system requirements to something more advanced than what is advertised. We really don't want any "new content" at this point. We want the present content to work correctly. If this patch is just more add-ons and units, then please delay it and give it back to the developers to fix GAMEPLAY. The thread is located here: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=91662

I like the graphics. But I'm more interested in function than eye candy. Compared to say Steel Panthers, graphics are quite good.

Sneaksie: I think you will find that most people ARE having problems with framerates. There is a whole thread on it. We have already tried using programs that shut down all unnecessary running programs and lowering the game requirements to bare minimum settings. That hasn't helped. And we didn't pay all this money to see graphics from the 1980s. We are also experiencing crash to desktop and lockups. That would indicate there is a good deal wrong with this sim besides just framerates. Why would the developers not address these problewms in this upcoming patch? Do they not read the posts and bug reports posted on here? Does nobody let them know what is going on with this sim? Most people have solved their framerate problem by NOT PLAYING the campaign AT ALL. That is hardly a viable option. We paid for a full game with all features functioning in it. Knaust1 is correct. If this game is taxing the system MORE than what the system requirements show, and we certainly have a bunch of guys with systems that EXCEED the optimum system requirements, then you are gonna have to change the system requirements to something more advanced than what is advertised. We really don't want any "new content" at this point. We want the present content to work correctly. If this patch is just more add-ons and units, then please delay it and give it back to the developers to fix GAMEPLAY.

I have to agree. I have all three and they work flawlessly and the graphics are quite nice. Another patch is coming and hopefully it will address the framerate problem.

Just wondering. :confused:

Hmmmm....I like the fact a patch is coming out. But no word on whether the FPS problem was addressed.

You're all wrong. Those were signs the Germans put up to advertise their new bestseller..."Mein Kampf"

Word is there is another patch coming out. No word (yet) whether it has addressed the FPS problem.

Reading my mind. I haven't played the sim because of the framerate and CTD problems. Been playing the Combat Mission series and having a good time with them.

Well I did some editing of the scenario (Danube Blues) and added some JagdPanthers. WOW!!!! Major difference!!! Talk about can openers! The JagdPanthers made short work of the T34/85s. Definitely have to keep your distance from tank hunter teams, though.

So let me ask this....if some early T34s (say 2-3) are shooting at one King Tiger, do the chances of total destruction of the Tiger go up, even though the rounds SHOULD be pretty ineffective? I don't mean crippling effects, but total destruction of the King Tiger.

Thanks Redwolf! I couldn't put my finger on it but that pretty much sums it up. I was wondering about the "gun stabilization" thing too. I think they compensate for it by lowering the accuracy of a tank that is firing and moving. But I think in real life the "shoot and scoot" method was used much more frequently. Tanks are not stable platforms to shoot from by any stretch of the imagination. I served on a US M60A1 tank as a gunner and it bounced around with every dip or bump in the terrain. Until the M1 Abrams and M3 Bradley, firing on the move and getting a hit was more luck than skill. And a tank standing still is usually dead meat. Much easier to hit a stationary object than one moving. That's why it was so easy to wipe out Saddam's tanks in the first Iraq war. dieseltaylor: You are correct. The "tank recovery vehicle" for a Tiger was another Tiger. I WAS using them individually. I'll try a massed attack and see if things improve.